FROM the EDITORS:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Who's really nostalgic? Richard McBrien, that's who.

The pope's recent authorization of the Tridentine Latin Mass, without the need to seek the local bishop's permission, has stirred some measure of debate within the Roman Catholic Church, especially in letters-to-the-editor and on blogs written by individuals who seem not to have day-jobs.

Ooooh. That was light'ning in a bottle, Jethro! Zing! Bang! Boom! Fortunately for me, part of my day job is to write for this blog. But, honestly, if your day job includes writing columns for Catholic newspapers, shouldn't you make some sort of effort to make them readable? If I had thrown down that opening sentence on a sixth-grade English exam, Mrs. Hermiston would have smacked me silly. And rightly so.

The overwhelming majority of Catholics, however, are apparently unaware of, or have already forgotten, the July 7 papal letter, entitled Summorum Pontificum (Latin, "Of supreme pontiffs").

Make up your mind: either people should be busy working their day jobs like mindless drones, or they should be paying attention to papal documents and blogging about them every single day. Which is it?

Indeed, those who attend Mass regularly would never prefer Mass in a language other than their own.

Never! None of them! And that, folks, is from the Chair of Richard, which means it can be placed right next to that glorious work of catechetical brilliance, Catholicism, nominated for several doctrinal errors by the USCCB. Well, every Sunday, my family and I attend Divine Liturgy at a Ukrainian Catholic parish, and some 20 to 30% of the liturgy is in Old Church Slavonic, a language that is not "my own." Do I "prefer" Church Slavonic? I don't think of in that way, I suppose; my preference is for reverence, a palpable sense of the sacred, decent music, a lack of experimentation, a good homily, a valid Eucharist. Is that so much to ask?

Those who do claim to prefer the Latin Mass, whether Tridentine or Novus Ordo (that is, in keeping with the reforms of Pope Paul VI), constitute a tiny minority of the Roman Catholic Church, which is not to say that they have no right to speak their minds about the matter or to take advantage of the concessions which the Vatican has offered them.

Please tell me he doesn't actually get paid to write these sort of sentences. Doing so makes it very difficult to decide if I should be more offended by the sloppy, inept writing style or the empty, condescending blathering. Here, then, is a glimpse into the world of Fr. McBrien:

1. No good Catholic prefers Mass said in a language not his own.2. Some claim to prefer the Latin Mass.3. But since Latin is not their language, they are only claiming to prefer the Latin Mass.

Thus, we can conclude that these folks are liars or that Fr. McBrien doesn't know what he's talking about. Tough choice.

But if such Catholics are under the ages of 45 or 50, they have little or no hands-on experience of the pre-Vatican II Mass. It is a mystery how one can be nostalgic for something one had never experienced.

Right, just like the "nostalgia" a bride and groom have for one another before they are married. Sure, they've never enjoyed the marital embrace, but for some strange reason they look forward to it, and for whatever reason anticipate its goodness. Nostalgic morons!

The point is that the use of "nostalgic" here is simply an empty (and bumbling) polemical device. But it also exposes the fraudulent nature of Fr. McBrien's "argument," which began with the bald assertion that no one, especially anyone under "45 or 50" would prefer the Latin Mass, but since many younger people do, they must be "nostalgic." But since you can't be nostalgic for what you don't know, they must be idiots. No, it's worse than that: they aren't "liturgical scholars":

In the past three months, liturgical scholars have published articles which carefully pick apart the reasoning behind the papal document that authorizes the use of the Tridentine Latin Mass.

[Similar, I presume, to how McBrien's Catholicism attempted to "pick apart" the reasoning behind certain core Christological and ecclesiological doctrines of the Church.]

(The document is technically known as a motu proprio, in that it is produced by the pope "on his own initiative.") Each critical analysis usually provokes a flurry of indignant reactions from a handful of Latin-Mass advocates.

Those Latin-loving, nostalgic ingrates! Just because the Pope has taken the step of allowing folks the right to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite doesn't free them from their obligation to cower before the liturgical scholars (of McBrien's choice, of course). How dare they question these expert denouncements of the papal motu proprio!

Again, while no one should question their freedom of speech, not one of them, to my knowledge, has presented a credible justification for their preference. A few substitute ridicule for reasoning.

"No one should question their freedom of speech..." What is this, fourth-grade debate class? Forget freedom of speech, how about freedom from yapping silliness? And, to your knowledge? Don't even get me started. Oops, that sure sounded like ridicule, didn't it? But, once again, I'm free from criticism since I'm not a Latin guy—remember, I attend a Byzantine Catholic Church. Yes, yes, I know. No real Catholic would prefer an Eastern Catholic parish when he could go to a Western rite parish. Let's just say that, having been raised in an anti-Catholic fundamentalist Bible chapel in western Montana, attending Divine Liturgy is all about nostalgia for me.

"Well, every Sunday, my family and I attend Divine Liturgy at a Ukrainian Catholic parish, and some 20 to 30% of the liturgy is in Old Slovanic, a language that is not "my own."

Actually, none of it is in "Old SLOVanic": the language used is "Church SLAVonic." The Church Slavonic that is today evolved out of the original Old Church Slavonic in the 14th century or so. Some still do refer to the liturgical language as "Old Church Slavonic," but most, I suspect, do differentiate between the older texts and the current form.
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ocsol-0-X.html

A trifling point, no doubt, for non-Slavs, but if you're going to use the Divine Liturgy to make a point about the Traditional Litan Mass, it's better to get things right.

Many thanks for your interesting and entertaining column on the Latin Mass. I have, of course, followed your career since I was a teenager; no one interested in things Catholic could afford not to pay attention to such an important voice of the theological establishment. But I fear, Father, that with the passage of time you have become somewhat out-of-touch with current realities. Alas, it is often the case that those on the very point of the cutting edge get lefy behind as the parade of life moves on. At 46, I am of course too young to remember the world before the Council; but I recognise, as an historian, that past events always remain current news to those who lived through them. I appreciate that seeing the revival of things you thought had been long since buried is immensely disturbing, and I do sympathise. But just as your views were in great part formed in revolt against the dominance of those who preceded you, you must accept that the same dynamic is at work today with those of us who prefer orthodox doctrine and reverent liturgy. I am very sorry if you are upset, but I can only conclude with these words from a leading light of your era, Bob Dylan:

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

Given your wide knowledge and undeniable talents, it would be far better for all of us if you'd lend a hand.

Hi there Carl -- The most salient point in Fr. McBrien's effusion: "It is a mystery how one can be nostalgic for something one had never experienced." There you have the modernist mindset in a nutshell (which isn't quite the same as calling the modernist a nut). If it ain't experienced, it cain't be real. If it's not in your face, in today's spunky liturgy or today's mass-produced church bulletin, then why on earth would it be in your thoughts?

Transcendence was only the first thing to go -- it was soon followed by the collective awareness of the past.

Note to Fr. McBrien: maybe, just maybe, some have tapped into the Church's tradition through, let's say, reading things not written by you . . . People like you have been trying to eradicate the Church's memory of the sacred for 40 years now, but danged if the amnesia isn't proving to be temporary after all.